ioc-container

问题 After reading "Dependency Injection in .NET" by Mark Seemann I stay away from the Service Locator which is an anti-pattern. Upon reading the release notes on MVC 4 I see: Improved Inversion of Control (IoC) via DependencyResolver: Web API now uses the service locator pattern implemented by MVC’s dependency resolver to obtain instances for many different facilities. Thus I'm left curious and confused why Microsoft would use a service locator in 2012. 回答1: That's an implementation detail that

问题 whenever i tried to use \Auth::User() i am getting non object property because my Auth::guest() returns true whenever i use them in service provider use Illuminate\Contracts\View\View; use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider; use Illuminate\Contracts\View\Factory; use App\relations; use App\User; use DB; use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Auth; class RelationServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider { /** * Bootstrap the application services. * * @return void */ public function boot() { // \Auth:

问题 I have got the following interface definition: public interface ICommandHandler { ILogger Logger { get; set; } bool SendAsync { get; set; } } I have multiple implementations that implement ICommandHandler and need to be resolved. While Castle Windows automatically injects the Logger property, when an ILogger is injected, I can't find a way to configure the SendAsync property to be set to true by Windsor during the creation of new instances. UPDATE The command handlers implement a generic

问题 I am using Castle Windsor 2.5.1 in an ASP.NET MVC project and using property injection to create an object which I expect to always be available on a base controller class. I am using a factory to create this object, however if there is an error in the constructor, I do not get a warning from Windsor at all and it just returns my object but without injecting the property. Is this the expected behaviour, and if so, how can I get an error raised when a factory fails to return anything? Here is

问题 I use Castle Windsor as my IoC container. I have an application that has a structure similar to the following: MyApp.Services.dll IEmployeeService IContractHoursService ... MyApp.ServicesImpl.dll EmployeeService : MyApp.Services.IEmployeeService ContractHoursService : MyApp.Services.IContractHoursService ... I use the XML configuration at the moment, and every time I add a new IService/Service pair, I have to add a new component to the XML configuration file. I want to switch all this over to

问题 I use Castle Windsor as my IoC container. I have an application that has a structure similar to the following: MyApp.Services.dll IEmployeeService IContractHoursService ... MyApp.ServicesImpl.dll EmployeeService : MyApp.Services.IEmployeeService ContractHoursService : MyApp.Services.IContractHoursService ... I use the XML configuration at the moment, and every time I add a new IService/Service pair, I have to add a new component to the XML configuration file. I want to switch all this over to

问题 How we can registerShutdown hook in web application? Is there any whays to register it in web.xml or in applicationContext.xml? I know that if we are using application with main class it's simple. ClassPathXmlApplicationContext context = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("ApplicationContext.xml"); context.registerShutdownHook(); But what about web application? As it uses ContextListener 回答1: registerShutdownHook() in standalone (non-web) application: The @PreDestroy annotation is used on

问题 I am new to IoC and am using Autofac in my current project. I have the following 2 classes: public class UserService : IUserService { private readonly IUserRepository _repo; private readonly IMailService _mailService; public UserService(IUserRepository repo, IMailService mailService) { _repo = repo; _mailService = mailService; } } public class MailService : IMailService { private readonly IMailRepository _repo; private readonly IUserService _userService; public MailService(IMailRepository

问题 It was recommended to me that, when using an IOC container, I should change this: class Foobar: IFoobar, IDisposable {}; Into this: interface IFoobar: IDisposable{}; class Foobar : IFoobar{}; I'm wondering if this is ok, or if it solves one problem and creates another. It certainly solves the problem where I badly want to do this: using( IFoobar = myContainer.Resolve<IFoobar>() ) { ... } And now I know that any substitute won't cause a run-time error. On the other hand, now all my mock

问题 The UserService constructor has two parameters, a IUnitOfWork and a IUserRepository : public UserService(IUnitOfWork unitofWork, IUserRepository userRepository) { ... } I am using named registrations to differentiate between multiple instances of IUnitOfWork , so when registering the UserService with the Unity container, I need to explicitly specify the parameters using an InjectionConstructor : container.RegisterType<IUserService, UserService>( new InjectionConstructor( new ResolvedParameter